Zoning board approves Gotham Properties lot reconfiguration and two variances on Pulaski Highway

The Goshen Zoning Board of Appeals on July 7 granted variances tied to a lot‑line adjustment for Gotham Properties that will reconfigure four tax lots into three parcels on Pulaski Highway (County Route 6). The board approved a variance related to road‑frontage/lot configuration (section referred to by staff as “2‑88” in the record) and a front‑yard setback variance reducing the required 50‑foot setback to approximately 21 feet for an existing nonconforming structure. The board incorporated a staff reference to town code (Chapter 97.13, subsection f/c) into the record.

Applicant representative Vince Petersak described the reconfiguration as a clean‑up of an odd parcel pattern tied to an existing access arrangement: the site currently uses Sleepy Hollow Road (a private road) for operational access to a rear packing/industrial facility and an older airplane hangar. Petersak told the board the reconfiguration makes the largest, rear parcel the hangar parcel and keeps road frontage with the front parcel where appropriate.

Board members and staff questioned the proposal’s details, including whether the black‑dirt area and former runway would remain undeveloped and whether the private road configuration would limit future subdivision. Petersak and his team agreed to record a restriction that the orange parcels would not be separately subdivided without return to the board; the applicant said planning‑board review and standard site‑plan conditions will apply before any new building permits are issued.

Public comments included a request that the planning board and town engineer be consulted about floodplain and drainage conditions on Sleepy Hollow Road and adjacent lands. A resident who submitted photos said concern centers on standing water and potential future development of lots; the board noted those issues fall largely under planning‑board site‑plan review, stormwater rules and engineering review rather than the ZBA variance test alone.

During the vote the board found that (1) the requested lot‑line/road‑frontage variance would not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character because the site’s functional access is via an existing private road, (2) the front‑yard setback variance, while substantial numerically, did not create an adverse environmental effect given the long‑standing nonconforming structures and would be subject to planning‑board conditions, and (3) self‑creation concerns were limited because many nonconformities predated current code enforcement. The ZBA approved the 2‑88 variance and the front‑yard setback variance; members announced conditions would include adherence to local and state building codes and any planning board conditions.

Town staff recorded the specific code reference discussed in the meeting as Chapter 97.13 (subsection f and related subparts) describing bulk regulations for nonresidential uses in the AI district, including a 50‑foot minimum front setback. The board noted that the tower/hangar on the rear parcel and the preexisting conditions informed its judgment.

The board’s approvals were conditioned on the applicant’s representations and subject to subsequent planning‑board/site‑plan review; the board consulted staff and recommended the planning board and town engineer review floodplain, access and drainage details before final building‑permit issuance. The ZBA indicated a formal decision and written record will be prepared for the file and that the planning‑board process will address engineering and stormwater controls before site construction or further subdivision.